Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Wonder Cars Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise Pune-I on 31 December, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. Appeal No. ST/338/2012 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PI/RKS/73/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai) For approval and signature: Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) ============================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
=============================================================
Wonder Cars Pvt. Ltd.
:
Appellant
VS
Commissioner of Central Excise Pune-I
:
Respondent
Appearance
Shri Sagar Shah, C.A. with
Shri K. Khairnar Advocate for Appellant
Shri Vikram Kaushik AC (A.R) for respondent
CORAM:
Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical)
Date of hearing :31/12/2015
Date of decision :31/12/2015
ORDER NO.
Per : M.V. Ravindran
This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.PI/RKS/73/2012 dated 21/03/2012.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The issue involved in this appeal is regarding the service tax liability on the appellant under the category of Business Support Services.
4. It is seen from the records that the appellant herein is authorized dealer of Maruti Cars. The appellant is also receiving an amount from their customers who purchase cars from them, an amount which is RTO registration charges, Smart Card Fees, Vehicle Registration Fees and other extra charges. It is the case of the Revenue that these extra charges collected by the appellant are taxable under the category of Business Support Services except for actual RTO registration charges. The first appellate authority has recorded the findings that the appellant by extending these services rendered to build a strong supportive relationship with people and more so with the customers, get covered under the category of Business Support Services and covered directly in relation to their main business of sales of cars.
5. We find that the findings recorded by the lower authorities are incorrect as the definition of Business Support Services as per Section 65(104c) of the Finance Act reads as under:
support services of business & commerce means services provided in relation to business or commerce * includes evaluation of prospective customers, telemarketing, processing of purchase orders & fulfillment services, information & tracking of the delivery schedules, managing distribution & logistics, customer relationship management services, accounting & processing of transactions, operational assistance for marketing, formulation of customer service & pricing policies, infrastructural support services & other transaction processing.
Explanation:- For the purpose of this clause, the expression infrastructural support services includes providing office along with office utilities, lounge, reception with the competent personnel to handle messages, secretarial services internet & telecom facilities, pantry & security.
It can be seen from the above reproduced definition that the said definition covers services which are rendered as indicated therein. In the case in hand, the amount collected as extra charges is not for any of the services which are enumerated in the said definition. The first appellate authority has stated that appellant is a rendering customer relationship services which in our view is incorrect as the definition talks about an entity rendering customer relationship management services and not the customer relationship by the appellant himself. In our view the definition of Business Support Services will not cover the services rendered by the appellant even in the residual category of other transaction processing.
6. In view of the foregoing, we hold that the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside and we do so. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Pronounced in court) (C.J. Mathew) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) Sm 4 Appeal No. ST/338/2012